dcfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Burtonverse
Name As a fan of Burton, I sympathize with Warner Brothers taking away from him creative powers for the last 2 movies. I suggest that "Burtonverse" be called something else. He had nothing to do with Forever and Robin and it shows. Warner Brothers are the ones who ruined this adaptation of Batman, requiring the re-boot. Continuity 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) :We could always do what they do on the MDP - use "Earth-releasedateoffilm" instead. :Roygbiv666 23:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I think we should go with (Batman 1989 Movie). DrJohnnyDiablo (talk) 19:47, February 29, 2016 (UTC) :But what about characters like Alfred Pennyworth and James Gordon, who are probably the only ones that remained consistent with the same actors throughout the Burton-directed movies and the Schumacher-directed movies? (Vic George (talk) 19:56, February 29, 2016 (UTC)) ::@DrJohnnyDiablo - The same statements I made over at Nolanverse hold here as well. ::And to simplify things, I think I'll post this over on the Forums.. ::- Byfield (talk) 23:02, February 29, 2016 (UTC) Catwoman The Catwoman movie is also part of this universe. In the movie Halle Berry's Catwoman investigates the history of the powers she has inherited, checking for previous women empowered as she has been. Among the many references shown is a picture of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. Lokiofmidgaard 11:39, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :That may just be a mythology gag. It's not generally reckoned to be in continuity. Is there a creator statement on the matter? -- [[User:Tupka217|Tupka]][[User talk:Tupka217|''217]] 11:45, June 13, 2010 (UTC)# "not generally reckoned to be in continuity" - by whom? The creators of the movie included her picture, a nod to the Batman version. It seems the burden of evidence that this isn't part of the Burtonverse is on those who claim otherwise - they need to find a creator statement saying it is just a "mythology gag." If the joking reference to Superman is counted as evidence that he exists in the Burtonverse, rather than just a "mythology gag" then how come an actual picture of Pfeiffer's Catwoman doesn't get the same value? Catwoman's a bad movie, so I can understand why some people might not want to put it in the same universe as Burton's Batman, but given it's got to share that universe with Batman and Robin, quality isn't a deciding factor. Lokiofmidgaard 11:50, June 13, 2010 (UTC) And reverting the Catwoman movie page "until discussion is resolved with some more evidence" - before you go reverting, where's your evidence? What evidence is there that Catwoman cannot fit into the continuity of the Burtonverse Batman movies? The evidence for it being part of them is clear - Patience's origin is very similar to Selina Byle in Batman Returns, brought back to life by cats after being murdered. She subsequently researches cases like her own to find previous women empowered by Bast, and one of the cases she finds is a picture of Selina Kyle as Catwoman. So the evidence for is there - the burden is on proving otherwise. Lokiofmidgaard 12:00, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :The reference to Superman is a mythology gag too. But it's just Superman - not, say, the Donnerverse Superman and by extension the entire Donnerverse. :There's one picture of Michelle Pfeiffer. The only thing that shows, is that in the universe of the Catwoman movie, a woman resembling Michelle Pfeiffer was once gifted with the cat magic. It doesn't mean it's the Burtonverse Selina Kyle, and even less that the entire Burtonverse shares continuity with the movie. :In a debate, both sides have and will always have a burden of evidence. But it's never an equal burden: you make the positive claim ("It is") which is always greater than the negative. "Negative proof" which you ask me to give, does not exist. In fact, asking me to do so is a logical fallacy. :I hide behind the null-hypothesis. So technically, I don't have to prove anything. I just have to poke holes in your reasoning. Your first point, "there's a picture, therefore it shares the same universe" is shaky and relies completely on assumption. Your second, "the origin story is similar, and notably different from the comics", does also not mean "Earth-Catwoman" and "Burtonverse" are the same per se. -- '[[User:Tupka217|Tupka']][[User talk:Tupka217|217]] 12:17, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :: I never claimed the reference to Superman indicated a specific Superman. But it nevertheless warranted someone adding a note saying Superman appears to exist in the Burtonverse. You state that the only thing the picture proves is that "a woman resembling Michelle Pfeiffer was once gifted with the cat magic." It's not just a picture of a woman resembling her - it is her. The intent seems clear enough, especially as the Catwoman movie was originally planned as a spin-off from Batman Returns. "In a debate, both sides have and will always have a burden of evidence." - agreed. So why haven't you provided ANY? ""Negative proof" which you ask me to give, does not exist." - it can exist. In fact, "proof by contradiction" is one of the strongest tenets of science. A statement by the creators saying "we included a picture of Pfeiffer's Catwoman, but that's just a joke" would be such proof. Or identifying clashing points of continuity that prevent the movies sharing a single continuum would likewise be negative proof - "these two points, one from either movie, contradict one another, that contradiction thus being proof against the hypothesis that they share a reality." You're inability to provide such negative proof is the problem. You demand evidence against your hypothesis that the realities are not the same one, then, when evidence is provided, insist you need more evidence, yet likewise insist there is no need to for you to back up your hypothesis with any - "I don't have to prove anything." You claim my evidence is shaky, while having nothing to back up your side of the debate - well, even if it was shaky (and I don't think it is as shaky as you'd like to claim), shaky evidence in favour of shared reality beats no evidence at all against it. Lokiofmidgaard 12:42, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :::My statement that negative proof doesn't exist was carelessly worded. Negative evidence does exist, however, you asking me to provide it is a fallacy. Simply because your point is not refuted, doesn't make you right. :::My claim is not a negative one, it is a neutral one. It could very well be that the movie shares the continuity. Unless '''solid' evidence is provided, it is not the case, however. That's why I don't have to provide any evidence of my own. :::You haven't provided any solid evidence. You've made several valid observations - shared origin, same appearance, originally meant as a spin-off, but this is not solid evidence for your claim, only circumstantial. I looked for interviews with one of the thirty-odd writers to see if they had anything on the matter, but couldn't find anything. :::I think it's better if we let other people chime in one this first, maybe they know more, or have other ideas. -- [[User:Tupka217|Tupka]][[User talk:Tupka217|''217]] 13:04, June 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::Seems to me that the picture sets up a prima facie case that the movie belongs in that continuity and shifts the burden of proof to those trying to exclude it. --Khajidha (talk) 14:49, May 2, 2017 (UTC) ::::: Things aren't quite so simple. If we accept the photo as proof, that the movie takes place in the Burtonverse, then we'd likely also have to consider the appearance of the first Burtonverse Batmobile, in "Don't Thug on Superman's Cape", as evidence that ''Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman is also set in the Burtonverse. The truth is that we don't have proof of either. What we've got is one photo and one re-used prop car. What we'd need is some form of official confirmation from someone at either DC or Warner Brothers.KylieMfever (talk) 14:00, January 30, 2020 (UTC) Superman Yeah, not much, but in Batman and Robin, George Clooney's Batman clearly refers to Superman, "This is why Superman works alone". Also, in Batman Forever, there is a passing reference to the city of Metropolis. In addition to that, Tim Burton was set to direct the now canceled Superman Lives and there are multiple pieces of concept art over the Internet. So, should we add a "Superman (Burtonverse)" page? Superman01 17:18, March 1, 2011 (UTC) Logo replacement I would like to upload a replacement of John Alvin's 89 logo, the one we currently have was uploaded in 2007 which was a long time ago now, but I'm pretty sue even back then you could've found a better scan than that. I don't think anyone would object to this?--Phantom Stranger (talk) 13:47, May 14, 2019 (UTC)